UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-18No. No. 20-10803

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Williams's conviction and sentence, finding that the plain error standard was not satisfied because the factual record was subject to reasonable dispute and any error did not affect his substantial rights.

Darde Lee Williams was convicted of escaping from federal custody and received a 30-month prison sentence plus one year of supervised release. On appeal, Williams argued that he should have received a four-level reduction in his sentencing guideline offense level because he escaped from nonsecure custody at a halfway house and did not commit any other felony while escaped. The court rejected this argument because the factual record contained conflicting statements about where Williams was actually located when he escaped—variously describing him as confined at a halfway house in Houston, in custody at a federal prison in Colorado, assigned to but not yet at the Houston facility, or escaping from a bus station in Lubbock. These factual ambiguities made it subject to reasonable dispute whether Williams was in the type of nonsecure custody that would qualify for the reduction.

The court applied plain error review and found that even if it accepted Williams's position, any error would not have affected his substantial rights because the trial judge stated on the record that the same sentence would have been imposed regardless of whether the guideline calculation was correct. The court also rejected Williams's novel arguments that he could not be guilty unless he escaped from the halfway house and that the grand jury's word choice in the indictment should control the sentencing determination.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defendant qualified for a four-level sentencing reduction under guidelines for escaping from nonsecure custody
Whether ambiguous factual record created plain error in sentencing
Whether any sentencing error was harmless in light of district court's statement it would impose same sentence

Procedural posture

Williams appealed his conviction and 30-month sentence for escaping federal custody, challenging the district court's sentencing guideline calculation on plain error review.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

DArde Lee Williams appeals the 30-month prison term and one-year term of supervised release imposed on his guilty plea conviction for escaping from federal custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). We affirm.

Reviewing for plain error,

we reject the contention that Williams was entitled to a reduction of his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3), which establishes a four-level reduction for a defendant who is under arrest on a felony charge or in custody for any conviction and who escapes from the nonsecure custody of a community corrections center, a community treatment center, a halfway house, or a like facility without returning voluntarily within 96 hours, provided he commits no other felony while escaped. United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the plain error standards first three prongs, the defendant must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, i.e., not “subject to reasonable dispute,” and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); see United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2009). Thereafter, remedying the error is a matter of judicial discretion. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

Williams fails in his attempt to show that he was in the custody of a halfway house when he escaped and is thus entitled to the offense level reduction. At best, the record shows that the claim is subject to reasonable dispute. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. The factual resume states variously that at the moment of his escape, Williams was confined in a halfway house in Houston, was in custody at a federal prison in Colorado, was assigned to but not yet at the Houston halfway house, and escaped from neither the prison nor the halfway house but from a bus station in Lubbock. These ambiguities alone are a basis for reasonable debate about whether he was in nonsecure custody and thus entitled to the § 2P1.1(b)(3) reduction. The reasonableness of the debate is not diminished by the novel notions Williams advances that he could not be adjudged guilty unless his escape was from the halfway house and that the grand jurys choice of words in the indictment dictates the sentencing determination. See United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v Cluck, 143 F.3d 174, 178 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 1991).

Further, even if we reached the third prong of plain error review, we would conclude any error did not affect his substantial rights given the district courts statement that the same sentence would have been entered even if the guidelines calculation was incorrect for the same reasons stated. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012)(even where harmless error review applies, such a statement that the district court would have imposed the same sentence for the same reason can support a finding of harmless error).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. The Government argues that the proper standard is “invited error” due to the fact that Williamss counsel affirmatively stated to the court that the § 2P1.1(b)(3) reduction at issue here was not in play. See United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 F.2d 599, 606 (5th Cir. 1991) (“A party generally may not invite error and then complain thereof.”). However, because Williams fails even under plain error, out of an “abundance of caution,” we will examine under plain error review. United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006)

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.